Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here]. Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail News GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
August 20, 2018, 01:50:35 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[185] What the Dickens?
[56] Shortage of train crews on Great Western Railway since Septemb...
[53] London to Reading, London to Heathrow, service patterns under ...
[44] Great Western Railway: on-board catering, buffets, Travelling ...
[38] IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent pe...
[36] How wide do you define "London"?
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] 43 44 ... 176
  Print  
Author Topic: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion  (Read 684856 times)
willc
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2330


View Profile
« Reply #615 on: April 04, 2011, 12:57:05 am »

Quote
I am finding it really hard to come up with a good solution for the services beyond Oxford

Well then spare us any more of this. There is no point you worrying about it, because the Government has already come up with a solution - which doesn't involve rusting 50-year-old diesels or more recently-built freight engines designed to shift heavy bulk trains, not featherweight passenger trains making frequent stops.
Logged
willc
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2330


View Profile
« Reply #616 on: April 06, 2011, 11:11:29 pm »

Interesting feature in the new issue of Rail about IEP, based on an interview with the boss of Agility Trains. Talks quite a bit about the diesel engines. They are looking at a number of designs, including ones that would offer 940hp each, a total of 2,820hp (2.1MW) per five-car train. A 180 has 5x750hp. They are well aware of the noise and vibration issue and are buying two engines which will be put under a testbed train in Japan later this year to help Hitachi look at ways to minimise these.

The five-car and eight-car trains can both have an extra car added, at the time they are built, or later. They are also looking at a 10-car all-electric version, with a view to bidding when the Class 91s and Mk4s need replacing and drawings were seen by Rail for a 10-car bi-mode with five electric motor coaches and five diesel engines mounted on the same coaches - Penzance here we come?? The maximum possible train length would be a 12-car.

Gives a daily diagram list suggesting Great Western would be operating 11 eight-car all-electric, 35 five-car bi-mode and nine five-car all electric (I stand corrected on that point), with East Coast having 35 five-car bi-modes and 10 five-car all-electrics. So, 100 operating, with about 10 more sets in the total fleet allowed for maintenance, etc.

Agility is to take over North Pole depot, build a new depot at Stoke Gifford in the triangle alongside the Bristol Parkway-Filton Abbey Wood curve, provide overnight servicing facilities at Cardiff Tidal and Swansea Maliphant (between the station and Landore depot) and share existing facilities at Worcester, Exeter and Laira.
Logged
woody
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 519


View Profile
« Reply #617 on: April 07, 2011, 11:05:58 am »

Agility is to take over North Pole depot, build a new depot at Stoke Gifford in the triangle alongside the Bristol Parkway-Filton Abbey Wood curve, provide overnight servicing facilities at Cardiff Tidal and Swansea Maliphant (between the station and Landore depot) and share existing facilities at Worcester, Exeter and Laira.
Laira!.Though IEP was not going west of Exeter only HSTs or is there more going on behind the scenes than we know about.
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2729


View Profile
« Reply #618 on: April 07, 2011, 01:16:53 pm »

Thanks Willc.  I'll have to buy Rail.  Glad to see Hitachi is trying hard to get this right.  There do seem to be a lot of 5 car trains proposed thought.  I assume that they will be used alot in pairs (with the predictable extra cost of providing catering twice and the revenue protection issues of non-connecting carriages)
Logged
mjones
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 309


View Profile
« Reply #619 on: April 07, 2011, 02:59:13 pm »

Not to mention the wasted space of two buffet areas etc, maybe they are only planning to use trolleys?

It really would be a shame if the lessons of the Voyager aren't learned this time...
Logged
paul7755
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4457


View Profile
« Reply #620 on: April 07, 2011, 03:36:05 pm »

Gives a daily diagram list suggesting Great Western would be operating 11 eight-car all-electric, 35 five-car bi-mode and nine five-car all electric (I stand corrected on that point), with East Coast having 35 five-car bi-modes and 10 five-car all-electrics. So, 100 operating, with about 10 more sets in the total fleet allowed for maintenance, etc.


The ratio of electric units for GW seems more explicit in 'Rail' this week; in the last MR (probably written about 3 weeks ago or more?) Roger Ford suggested it would probably be 11 and 9, but didn't commit to that as DfT had only given the total of 133 electric cars, which could also have been met by 6 x 8 car and 17 x 5 car.

Agree that the sudden mention of Laira depot seems rather unexpected...

Paul
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2729


View Profile
« Reply #621 on: April 07, 2011, 04:03:45 pm »

Not to mention the wasted space of two buffet areas etc, maybe they are only planning to use trolleys?

It really would be a shame if the lessons of the Voyager aren't learned this time...

Of course lots of 5-car bi-modes would be fine as a temporary measure.  If we eventually get the wires to Swansea and Exeter and beyond and order some more electric trains then the bi-modes could replace the voyagers on XC services, the voyagers could replace the XC turbostars, the turbostars could be cascaded and we could scrap the "tin trucks" / "nodding donkeys".

IF NR and Hitachii deliver on time and on budget, we needn't think of this as the last order of electric trains.
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2729


View Profile
« Reply #622 on: April 07, 2011, 04:04:47 pm »

Not to mention the wasted space of two buffet areas etc, maybe they are only planning to use trolleys?

It really would be a shame if the lessons of the Voyager aren't learned this time...
...  The the space wasted by providing two more cabs and extra disabled toilets.
Logged
IndustryInsider
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6586


View Profile
« Reply #623 on: April 07, 2011, 04:17:05 pm »

They are also looking at a 10-car all-electric version, with a view to bidding when the Class 91s and Mk4s need replacing

I'm a little surprised that 10-car electric versions (or 9-car possibly) haven't been chosen anyway?  8-Car trains (albeit 26m carriages) won't add much capacity and if you're planning on running 10-car Bi-mode trains around coupled together, then the platforms would all have to be done for that length anyway (where they aren't already long enough).  Still, as long as they can be easily lengthened, Pendolino style, then that's alright.  Flexibility is the key.

I too am a little concerned about the logistics of running these 10-car Bi-mode trains around with two TM's, two catering staff, two large wastes of space in the form of unused cabs - if they're not careful, most of the benefits of having 26m carriages will be lost.
Logged

To view my cab run over the new Reading Viaduct as well as a relief line cab ride at Reading just after Platforms 12-15 opened and my 'before and after' video comparison of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/1
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21309



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #624 on: April 07, 2011, 06:15:33 pm »

I too am a little concerned about the logistics of running these 10-car Bi-mode trains around with two TM's, two catering staff, two large wastes of space in the form of unused cabs - if they're not careful, most of the benefits of having 26m carriages will be lost.

But I look and say "why not make a virtue of it?".   So many trains are busier at their London end that the "country" end ... so why not run 10 carriages out from London, and split the train for 2 destinations.  Split at Oxford for Hereford and somewhere north of Banbury. Split at Swindon for Cheltenham and Weymouth. Split at Parkway for Swansea and Taunton. Split at Exeter for Paignton and Exmouth.   Some of these are more serious suggestions than others.
Logged

TransWilts Rail - Linking North to West and South 9 times a day. [see here]
Deltic
Full Member
***
Posts: 95


View Profile Email
« Reply #625 on: April 07, 2011, 06:55:54 pm »

Or more likely send the rear 5 coaches back to London with another 5 from farther afield. But isn't the problem with this that the government doesn't like coupling / uncoupling of trains / locos en route. That's why they have gone for bi-modes.
Logged
willc
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2330


View Profile
« Reply #626 on: April 07, 2011, 10:48:49 pm »

I omitted mention of catering arrangements partly for the sake of brevity but also because it might be nice if Rail was able to sell a few copies...

And why would staffing have to be doubled up everywhere? For example, on a London-Worcester service, splitting at Oxford, logic suggests you would staff a buffet and first class with customer hosts in the Cotswold section and not the Oxford one. Most Oxford originating and terminating fasts have no catering, or just a trolley. One TM would suffice (if revenue protection's an issue then use more travelling staff for that specific task) - FGW runs rather a lot of paired up Turbo formations with just a driver on board and no TM as tall - these formations also have four driving cabs, as did paired-up 180 formations. If you are to have a flexible fleet then this is what is needed. The 2+7 or 2+8 HST fleet is not very flexible and carries around air in a number of other places than the Cotswold Line off-peak.
Logged
IndustryInsider
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6586


View Profile
« Reply #627 on: April 08, 2011, 12:21:44 am »

One TM would suffice (if revenue protection's an issue then use more travelling staff for that specific task) - FGW runs rather a lot of paired up Turbo formations with just a driver on board and no TM as tall

Unless I'm mistaken, unless these trains are going to run as DOO - and I don't think they will, even on the Oxford route, and certainly not between London and Cardiff (Swansea) - then you will need a TM for both portions if there's no through corridor connection between the sets.
Logged

To view my cab run over the new Reading Viaduct as well as a relief line cab ride at Reading just after Platforms 12-15 opened and my 'before and after' video comparison of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/1
willc
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2330


View Profile
« Reply #628 on: April 08, 2011, 12:56:53 am »

I can see managers arguing that if all on-board staff have safety training, then having at least one steward/customer host in each unit and a tm somewhere in the formation would suffice. And let's face it, there's bound to be some sort of bust-up with the unions over the introduction of these trains somewhere down the line... double-manned HSTs ring any bells?
Logged
broadgage
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2016



View Profile
« Reply #629 on: April 08, 2011, 08:02:29 am »

Thanks Willc.  I'll have to buy Rail.  Glad to see Hitachi is trying hard to get this right.  There do seem to be a lot of 5 car trains proposed thought.  I assume that they will be used alot in pairs (with the predictable extra cost of providing catering twice and the revenue protection issues of non-connecting carriages)

Having experienced new trains on other routes, I dont assume that they will be "used a lot in pairs" I cynicly assume that they will run mainly as single units as with voyagers.
And why on earth would they "provide catering twice", not at all more likely, maybe a trolley if you are lucky.

By cramming in lots of high density bus seats, minimising luggage space, removing catering, and reducing the number of toilets, it should be possible to provide "similar" seat numbers to an unimproved HST. "Similar" in this context is railway jargon for "not that much worse"
Logged

"When customers say that they want a seat, they dont mean they want to sit with their knees behind their ears so that 4 more can sit down. They mean that they want an extra coach so that 74 more can sit down"
"Capacity on intercity routes should be about number of vehicles, not compressing people"
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] 43 44 ... 176
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants